Salomon v. United States
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Lublin Corp. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2008)
- Etlimar Societe Anonyme v. United States (Court of Claims 1952)
- State v. McCloud (Kan. 1995)
- Sawyer v. Gray (District Court, W.D. Washington 1913)
- Jones v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1875)
- Archer Daniels Midland Company v. American Liberty M/T (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 2021)
- United States v. Raymont Wright (3d Cir. 2019)
- Wilkes v. Penn (Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas 1932)
- Citizens State Bank v. Johnson County (Ky. Ct. App. 1922)
- Klebe v. United States (Court of Claims 1922)
- Silverhorn v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance (Haw. 1918)
- Maryland Steel Co. of Baltimore Cty. v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1915)
- Maryland Steel Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1912)
- William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1910)
- New York Market Gardeners' Ass'n v. United States (Court of Claims 1908)
- Adams v. United States (Court of Claims 1901)
- Walker v. United States (Court of Claims 1899)
- Mann v. United States (Court of Claims 1897)
- Swigett v. United States (District Court, D. Montana 1896)
- City of Ellsworth v. Rossiter (Kan. 1891)
- Bowe v. United States (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1890)
- Beers v. Dalles City (Or. 1888)
- Camp v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1885)
- Mitchell v. United States (Court of Claims 1884)
- McCann v. United States (Court of Claims 1883)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
Whether we regard the delivery made in October as made under a verbal extension of the time stipulated in the original contract, or consider it as a new transaction in which the government received and took possession of the corn, and used part of it and permitted the remainder to be injured in its hands, we think the claimant is equally entitled to be paid for it.
The act of 1862, requiring contracts for military supplies to be in writing, is not infringed by the proper officer having charge of such matter, accepting delivery of such supplies *20 after the day stipulated, nor is a verbal agreement to extend the time of performance invalid.
And if this were not so, when the quartermaster in charge receives of a person corn for the government, gives a receipt and voucher for the amount and the price, and the government uses such part of it as it wants, and suffers the remainder to decay by exposure and neglect, there is an implied contract to pay the value of such corn, which value may, in the absence of other testimony, be presumed to be the price fixed in the voucher by the quartermaster.
Judgment reversed, with directions to enter a judgment for claimant for the
Amount of the said voucher.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.